1 2026:CGHC:4716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1172 of 2024 D. Laxmi Prasad Reddy S/o Shri Simha Chalam Reddy Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Panchshil Nagar East Charouda Tahsil Patan District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. D. Sangita Reddy W/o Shri D. Laxmi Prasad Reddy D/o Late D. Surynarayan Aged About 39 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar Sector 3 Jhanda Chowk Khamtarai Raipur Tahsil Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Narayan Prasad and Chaman Prakash Lahre, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No. 662/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from ₹4,000/- per month to PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.30 09:45:45 +0530 2 ₹18,000/- per month. It was pleaded by the respondent that an earlier order dated 25.11.2014 passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. had awarded maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month, which was on the lower side and inadequate. Subsequently, another application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. was filed, which was disposed of on the basis of settlement, directing the applicant to pay ₹4,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent further pleaded that after the order dated 22.10.2020, the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance amount regularly, causing her financial hardship. It was also stated that she has no independent source of income, whereas the petitioner owns a residential house earning ₹21,000/- per month as rental income and additionally earns ₹12,000/- to ₹15,000/- per month from coaching. On these grounds, enhancement of maintenance to ₹18,000/- per month was sought. The applicant filed his written statement contending that the respondent had filed the application by suppressing material facts and making false statements. It was pleaded that the respondent is a graduate in music and earns approximately ₹20,000/- to ₹25,000/- per month by teaching music, and that she has described herself as a teacher in her medical records. The applicant further pleaded that he has no regular source of income and survives by working in a private construction company, earning only ₹5,000/- per month. It was also submitted that the respondent had already obtained a decree of divorce from the petitioner and that the petitioner’s parents are dependent upon him. On these grounds, dismissal of the respondent’s application was prayed for. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 24.08.2024 and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.7,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that by the 3 impugned order, the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent without there being any cogent or material evidence on record to justify such enhancement. The learned Family Court erred in computing the maintenance amount, particularly when the wife of the applicant is living separately without any sufficient or justifiable cause. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is earning only ₹5,000/- per month by working in a private construction company and has no other regular source of income. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the applicant is willing and ready to live with his wife and child and has made repeated efforts in this regard; however, the wife has instead lodged false dowry-related cases against the applicant. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the applicant is a daily wage labourer and that his wife is residing separately without sufficient reason, despite the petitioner’s repeated attempts to resume cohabitation. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month, which is arbitrary and excessive. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 7. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti